ethical/technical/moral question

[AceDragonKing]

Okay so me an my buds got to talking and one thing lead to another and i pose this question to you guys.

CAN I ETHICALLY/TECHNICALLY DO ORGAN/LIMB HARVESTING IN DND 3.5
Using stone to flesh/ mold earth/ and flesh to stone?

so basically it says in Stone to flesh. that if you use it on a statue that it becomes a corpse. Could i then cut out its heart to save someone or kidney or an arm or something. Then use flesh to stone to turn it back into a statue and then proceed to use mold earth to make a replacement kidney/heart/arm/whatever to replace the piece we took? then use Stone to flesh to repeat the process?

Can we also use said corpse as a farm to get things needed for grafting feats? cause some like the undead grafts don’t require the doner to be living while others like the dragon ones do. but the one that don’t specifically say the doner has to be living?

also if the statue is a human is it a human corpse but if the statue is a demon will it be a demon corpse? my buds and i had contradictory opinions one of them says that no it wouldn’t be a demon corpse it will be a demon shaped man corpse. so while it would look like a demon it would be man meat. (obviously i think she is wrong)

This is not time sensitive this is probably not gonna ever be used. We just got to talking and now we are curious.

[Eldonauran]

You need to do a little bit more careful reading of the spell in question:

"The spell also can convert a mass of stone into a fleshy substance. Such flesh is inert and lacking a vital life force unless a life force or magical energy is available."

You get a corpse-shaped mass of fleshy substance lacking any kind of life or vital essence. Harvesting organs? Nope. It is flesh. Non-living flesh for that matter. It would not have a specific race.

[King of Nowhere]

this is all "ask your master" territory. if you are the master, answer those as you choose.
personally, i would say yes to all the stuff like regular organ harvesting. it's not game-breaking; you don't need to make a new kidney to transplant, you can just cast heal on the guy with the kidney problem. and getting "undead" parts without moral problems is the kind of things that I like doing. i don't like the whole "this branch of magic is evil and you can't do it, period".
i would say that if you make a demon/dragon/whatever statue, it won't count as part of that monster for the purposes of any special magical powers it may possess. else, it would break magical economy

[Calthropstu]

It is a corpse. A corpse is not to be confused with a creature with the dead condition which counts as a corpse. One has properties inherent to the original creature, has valuable properties and retains some of the magic and connection to a soul it had in life (hence why necromancy is evil). The other is a sack of organs limbs and meat.

A demon statue made flesh would be a fleshy corpse of a demon, but would have no properties of a demon. Because it is not a dead demon, it is merely a demon corpse.

If that makes sense. I remember this being a long arduous discussion at some point when someone tried ressurecting someone by building a statue and flesh to stone trying to bypass the time limit.

[icefractal]

You get a corpse-shaped mass of fleshy substance lacking any kind of life or vital essence. Harvesting organs? Nope. It is flesh. Non-living flesh for that matter. It would not have a specific race.That's debatable. I agree that it'd make more sense for it to just treat statues like it treats other stone (you get a person-shaped mass of undifferentiated flesh), and for it to not have effect on golems because they're neither petrified or a cylinder of stone, but the spell has this text:

(For example, this spell would turn a stone golem into a flesh golem, but an ordinary statue would become a corpse.)

The golem part is later contradicted by the Stone Golem itself:

A stone to flesh spell does not actually change the golem’s structure but negates its damage reduction and immunity to magic for 1 full round.

So there are three readings:
1) Those examples are invalid, you get a statue-shaped lump of generic flesh.
2) The golem one is invalid, but you do get a proper corpse.
3) They're both valid, it's the Stone Golem entry that's in error.


If it does work there's no ethical issue; the flesh was never alive, so you aren't harming anyone to get it. And for that matter, even if it was alive but non-sapient, most people would consider that acceptable (since, you know, any non-vegetarian diet does that by definition).

Tangentially, it occurs to me that in D&D, people with enough resources could avoid harming even plants by just not eating at all (Ring of Sustenance, living off magically-created food, or become undead / a construct). There'd probably be niche groups that consider that the only ethical path.

[InvisibleBison]

I don't quite see how there's an ethical or moral issue here. You're basically asking if it's ok to use magic to heal people, and the answer is yes, of course it is. What possible issue do you think there could be?

[Calthropstu]

I don't quite see how there's an ethical or moral issue here. You're basically asking if it's ok to use magic to heal people, and the answer is yes, of course it is. What possible issue do you think there could be?

Depends on the base ethos. We can't really discuss it easily without breaking into real life religion, but there are ethos systems that proclaim anything dealing with corpses is evil, even in d&d/pf iirc. Creating corpses out of midair may annoy Pharasma for example.

[Particle_Man]

I think there are some Wu Jen and/or book of exalted deeds vows that touch on not touching corpses, but probably everyone else in game is ok unless there is a particular state or religious injunction against it in part of one’s game setting.

[loky1109]

so basically it says in Stone to flesh. that if you use it on a statue that it becomes a corpse.

No, it becomes a piece of flesh in form of body.


Could i then cut out its heart to save someone or kidney or an arm or something.
No, there are no heart at all. "Arm" isn't arm, it is homogeneous piece of meat without nerves, blood vessels, bones, etc.

[Particle_Man]

So would a sculpture of a chicken that undergoes stone to flesh be edible chicken-like flesh?

[Calthropstu]

So would a sculpture of a chicken that undergoes stone to flesh be edible chicken-like flesh?

Yes.

And I have to disagree on the organs. A corpse has organs. You can't animate it via animate dead, but you can definitely fit the flesh to the statue.

Gives me an idea actually, a wizard prank where someone makes a statue of a prominent figure, stone to flesh, and lays its corpse somewhere.

[loky1109]

And I have to disagree on the organs. A corpse has organs.

We nave no RAW definition of "corpse". If there are organs in StF sculpture, why are no organs in StF rock? What is different? You know, rock is sculpture from which don't cut off redundant yet.

[Calthropstu]

We nave no RAW definition of "corpse". If there are organs in StF sculpture, why are no organs in StF rock? What is different? You know, rock is sculpture from which don't cut off redundant yet.

Because it specifically states corpse.

Dead condition mentions becoming a corpse, but as you stated there is no definition for corpse. So we go to english which is "dead body"

Which is why a statue turned into a corpse would be a dead body, but not a creature with the dead condition. Ergo, the dead body of the statue never enters the realm of game mechanics and thus all things regarding it beyond existing is gm adjudication.

[AceDragonKing]

You need to do a little bit more careful reading of the spell in question:

"The spell also can convert a mass of stone into a fleshy substance. Such flesh is inert and lacking a vital life force unless a life force or magical energy is available."

You get a corpse-shaped mass of fleshy substance lacking any kind of life or vital essence. Harvesting organs? Nope. It is flesh. Non-living flesh for that matter. It would not have a specific race.

I don’t want it to be alive i don’t need it to have a life force. I’m just trying to redirect it. i just want a quite literal “fresh” corpse. I just want to be able to take it apart since it’s a copse.

side note i agree with the guy who was talking about the chicken this is a decent way to have all the rations/tarrasque bait we could ever need.

[Eldonauran]

The golem part is later contradicted by the Stone Golem itself:


So there are three readings:
1) Those examples are invalid, you get a statue-shaped lump of generic flesh.
2) The golem one is invalid, but you do get a proper corpse.
3) They're both valid, it's the Stone Golem entry that's in error.
The use of the spell on a stone golem is a specific interaction of the spell that is called out. Since flesh golems exist and stone golems exist, it would make logic sense that the spell could interact with the creature in such a way. That is still a vast difference between turning stone into viable organs (if non-living/dead/not viable) that could then be harvested for placement in living creatures.


I don’t want it to be alive i don’t need it to have a life force. I’m just trying to redirect it. i just want a quite literal “fresh” corpse. I just want to be able to take it apart since it’s a copse.As others have said, a dead creature and a corpse are not necessarily the same thing. The terms can overlap, but it does not necessarily mean that a lump of flesh in the shape of said creature has those same properties.

[Particle_Man]

If I were dming it I would say it depends on one’s knowledge of, say, human anatomy, which in Ye Olde Medieval Fantasy might be kind of crappy, but in a d20 modern game with a mage surgeon might be good enough to get what are effectively “three d printed hearts compatible with the person getting the heart”.

[Zanos]

This argument comes up every once in awhile. Stone to flesh produces corpses explicitly. "Corpse shaped mass of flesh" is an invention created by people who don't like that use of the spell.

All the printed uses of the spell are capable of producing bones/organs. Unpetrifying someone, and turning a stone golem into a flesh golem would produce bones/organs(which are "fleshy" under the technical definition). And other parts of the spell don't make sense if you assume it's just meat, you can explicitly imbue life into the corpse you just made, which is a lot more nonsensical if it's just meat.

The rules do not redefine what "corpse" means so you go with the standard definition, and nobody in their right mind would refer to a mass of undifferentiated tissue as a corpse.


If I were dming it I would say it depends on one’s knowledge of, say, human anatomy, which in Ye Olde Medieval Fantasy might be kind of crappy, but in a d20 modern game with a mage surgeon might be good enough to get what are effectively “three d printed hearts compatible with the person getting the heart”.
It's a bit more advanced than one would think, many non-setting specific books have dissection diagrams.

[Darg]

I would say that that the crafter should be required to have the ability to shape the stone and create fine detail in order for the "flesh" to mimic real body parts.

Other than that, I can't see anything immoral about changing nonliving matter into nonliving matter.

If we want a more RAW way to create a process of crafting living body parts: magically create fine detail for a stone statue, cast stone to flesh, cast create undead (doesn't require a dead creature), cast spark of life, and now transplant. With fiat, the new host takes over providing life. If we don't mind the body parts not being for living creatures, we could skip the spark of life part.

[AceDragonKing]

This argument comes up every once in awhile. Stone to flesh produces corpses explicitly. "Corpse shaped mass of flesh" is an invention created by people who don't like that use of the spell.

All the printed uses of the spell are capable of producing bones/organs. Unpetrifying someone, and turning a stone golem into a flesh golem would produce bones/organs(which are "fleshy" under the technical definition). And other parts of the spell don't make sense if you assume it's just meat, you can explicitly imbue life into the corpse you just made, which is a lot more nonsensical if it's just meat.

The rules do not redefine what "corpse" means so you go with the standard definition, and nobody in their right mind would refer to a mass of undifferentiated tissue as a corpse.


It's a bit more advanced than one would think, many non-setting specific books have dissection diagrams.

i think i’m gonna have to agree with you here, that makes a lot of sense. But i’m thinking i’d go a bit rather and say all the organs and what not are in fact there. I’d even go so far as to allow poisons that would be in the fangs or claws of the creature.

And before anyone says anything. We are in fact talking about “magic” not science. if i can use the same 6th lvl spell slot to cast

Fiendform

(Magic of Faerun)

Transmutation [Evil]
Level: Sorcerer 6 (Red Wizard), Wizard 6 (Red Wizard),
Components: V, M,
Duration: 1 minute/level

As polymorph self (see polymorph self, page 239 of the Player's Handbook), except as noted above and as follows.
You may take the form of any fiendish creature, demon, or devil that can be summoned by summon monster I-VI.
You cannot assume multiple forms with each use of the spell, but you gain all the creature's extraordinary, spell-like, and supernatural abilities.
Your type changes to outsider, and spells and effects that harm or ward evil outsiders affect you.
A spell that would banish you to your home plane ends this spell and leaves you staggered for 1 round per caster level, but does not send you to another plane.
Material Component: A bone from any fiendish creature, half-fiendish creature, demon, or devil.
Also appears in

Complete Arcane
Unapproachable East
Spell Compendium

why would i not be able to duplicate the organ and other properties?

[Darg]

why would i not be able to duplicate the organ and other properties?

because a spell only does what it says. A corpse doesn't necessarily have to be anatomically correct to be considered a corpse.

[icefractal]

A humanoid-shaped sausage is not the same thing as a corpse though. The only argument I think holds against that is that since the Stone Golem example is likely wrong (directly contradicted by the Stone Golem entry itself), then the corpse example is likely wrong as well.

Now there the separate issue of Animate Dead. The main problem being that while that spell targets "a corpse", the text of the spell is based on targeting a dead creature - not the same thing in this case! Skeleton and Zombie are templates, and applying a template to "nothing" is pretty questionable. I mean, why not say that the statue is of Saitama and has Strength and Dexterity in the triple digits? Sculpt 10,000 tentacles on there and now it has that many natural attacks! It's fundamentally incoherent.

Of course those are reasons for removing it as a GM rather than RAW arguments. For that, my argument would be that since there is no base creature for the template to apply to, it has zero hit dice and falls apart as soon as created (no stats either, but that's probably moot).

[zlefin]

I'd say its reasonable to wholly disregard the parenthetical remark in the stone to flesh entry, since it directly contradicts the entry for the golem itself. As well as more generally ignoring how golems work, SR, the fact that a stone golem is neither a petrified creature nor fits in the other area of effect.

I'd say the parenthetical remark is a leftover from a sloppy editor given the above issues, and is best disregarded.

[RNightstalker]

Depends on the base ethos. We can't really discuss it easily without breaking into real life religion, but there are ethos systems that proclaim anything dealing with corpses is evil, even in d&d/pf iirc. Creating corpses out of midair may annoy Pharasma for example.

There is no equivalent IRL to compare magic to. The majority of the real life religion I belong to, believe, etc. aren't fans of this game. Fortunately for me, playing a character in a fictional setting doesn't bother me even though it bothers a lot of others. If we could IRL shape some stone and cast a few spells, it could get into a real slippery slope, really really really ridiculously fast. But we can't, so why argue about hypotheticals? For example, everyone in their right mind would know that Superman>Batman, but there are a lot of people that aren't in their right mind, so why try to reason with them?

Back to the OP, I would ask why do you need to harvest organs when fewer spells are involved to outright heal someone?

[AceDragonKing]

A humanoid-shaped sausage is not the same thing as a corpse though. The only argument I think holds against that is that since the Stone Golem example is likely wrong (directly contradicted by the Stone Golem entry itself), then the corpse example is likely wrong as well.

Now there the separate issue of Animate Dead. The main problem being that while that spell targets "a corpse", the text of the spell is based on targeting a dead creature - not the same thing in this case! Skeleton and Zombie are templates, and applying a template to "nothing" is pretty questionable. I mean, why not say that the statue is of Saitama and has Strength and Dexterity in the triple digits? Sculpt 10,000 tentacles on there and now it has that many natural attacks! It's fundamentally incoherent.

Of course those are reasons for removing it as a GM rather than RAW arguments. For that, my argument would be that since there is no base creature for the template to apply to, it has zero hit dice and falls apart as soon as created (no stats either, but that's probably moot).

the spell limits are a 1-3ft diameter and up to 10ft long. This would keep it from being to big or strong

[AceDragonKing]

Back to the OP, I would ask why do you need to harvest organs when fewer spells are involved to outright heal someone?




it’s not that i’m specifically trying to do this in a game. It’s more that we noticed that it might be theoretically possible.

that is as far as kidneys or a heart goes.

but the grafting feats tho are something that is entirely possible to do. say it lets me not go grave robbing to get a skeletal arm for some undead grafts. but there are plenty of other grafts some of which requires specifically that you get them from a living creature (cough cough dragon) but some do not and you can get it from a living or a corpse of a particular creature. that being said stone to flesh and flesh to stone are wizard/sorcerer spells and they would not have access to said healing spells that a cleric would have and this along with a heal check might be the only way to get them a replacement arm. (based on builds and party comp)

[RNightstalker]

there are plenty of other grafts some of which requires specifically that you get them from a living creature (cough cough dragon)

::cough cough "Shivering Touch" cough cough::

That being said, you do make a good point about arcane casters not having access to some healing spells, but wouldn't anyspell cover that? Especially since this is theoretical for your purposes at least, I'll bow out from this one at this point.

[loky1109]

::cough cough "Shivering Touch" cough cough::

You don't need Shivering Touch for take dragon grafts. Dragon grafts have taken from dragon's eggs.

[RNightstalker]

You don't need Shivering Touch for take dragon grafts. Dragon grafts have taken from dragon's eggs.

Arguable about the state of development in the egg with regards to harvestable body parts.

[AceDragonKing]

Arguable about the state of development in the egg with regards to harvestable body parts.

actually i just double checked and we might be able to get away with it

Glaring Eye:

Donor: A sample of eye tissue from an unhatched wyrmling, or an eye from a dragon.

[ixrisor]

With regards to stone to flesh on a golem, both clauses can be true - immunity to magic says “a stone to flesh spell does not actually change the golem’s structure but negates its damage reduction and immunity to magic for 1 full round.” The first casting of stone to flesh is blocked by magic immunity, and the second casting, now that magic immunity is no longer there, can have its effect, which is turning the stone golem into a flesh golem.

[Silly Name]

Re: using Stone to Flesh in order to get organ transplants, my only complaint would be that, under a more liberal reading of Remove Disease that doesn't restrict it to gamebook-defined diseases, you could cure a variety of afflictions and directly circumvent the need for a transplant in many cases. Your DM's mileage may vary on what can be cured/counts as a disease, but it's cheaper and easier than surgery when allowed.

Regarding grafts, I would generally allow it, but I'm not sure how I'd feel about it if I wanted to ground it in the actual gameworld: do statues turned into corpses preserve the special, often supernatural/magic, qualities of the creature they represent? I'm ok with them having organs, but I'm not sure how accurate those should be. Still, ethical alternative to harvesting stuff from living creatures and unwilling "donors".

[loky1109]

Still, ethical alternative to harvesting stuff from living creatures and unwilling "donors".

And this is another contra argument.
Yes, it is metagaming, but... Grafts have their price. This price is "harvesting stuff from living creatures and unwilling "donors"" and it is really evil thing. If you propose same outcome without similar price... This isn't good for game. Regular pseudo medieval D&D game I mean.
You literally kill ethics. Ethics exists till there are ethical problems and choice between good with detriment and bad with benefit. Grafts from stones... are good with benefit. No price, all stuff.

[icefractal]

If you propose same outcome without similar price... This isn't good for game.IDK, a number of things have a harmful way to do them and a (usually more difficult) harmless way. Usually more difficult because otherwise doing it the harmful way is just spite - but OTOH, people can and do act out of spite even when it hurts themselves as well. I used to think villains like that were unrealistic, but sadly they're very plausible.

For example in D&D, building constructs is a thing you can do. An expensive thing, but other than that it has no downside and isn't unethical (except the types that use a bound elemental). So any form of slavery, enthrallment, reanimation, and so forth which is just for the purpose of "troops" or "workers" has a better alternative. But for many evil characters, why bother? Forcing some farmers to work until they die and then reanimating them is easier.

[loky1109]

Forcing some farmers to work until they die and then reanimating them is easier.
This is my point. Evil is easier. And evil should be easier, if we want have ethical conflicts in game.
D&D is game in which there are objective Evil and objective Good, it should have ethical conflicts.

[Zanos]

Considering most grafts are sourced from Always Evil creatures, I'm not sure how Evil the "taking body parts" aspect is. At least, the rules have no specific provision for harvesting graft parts being Evil, other than for fiendish grafts, because obviously attaching demon parts to your body is bad for your alignment.

[ThanatosZero]

If you cast Stone to Flesh on a animated statue, via the Animate Object spell, would the result be a animated corpse or a living being?

[Thurbane]

Every time Stone to Flesh is mentioned (in relation to creating corpses), someone has to chime in with "Ackchyually...". :smallamused:

It says it creates a corpse, right there in the spell! Not corpse-shaped pile of meat. A corpse. Lacking an ingame definition of corpse, we default to common usage.

I get it, I really do. People want to ascribe a certain logic and science to how it should work, but yanno....MAGIC.

Sorry, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it has popped up several times in the last month or so, and it both amuses and irks me every time.

[zlefin]

Every time Stone to Flesh is mentioned (in relation to creating corpses), someone has to chime in with "Ackchyually...". :smallamused:

It says it creates a corpse, right there in the spell! Not corpse-shaped pile of meat. A corpse. Lacking an ingame definition of corpse, we default to common usage.

I get it, I really do. People want to ascribe a certain logic and science to how it should work, but yanno....MAGIC.

Sorry, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it has popped up several times in the last month or so, and it both amuses and irks me every time.

the problem is that that part of the spell description has problems of its own which make it unclear if it's an editing error or not. So there's reasonable grounds to doubt it. When the text contradicts itself, some judgment calls are required as to how it should be handled.

[Thurbane]

the problem is that that part of the spell description has problems of its own which make it unclear if it's an editing error or not. So there's reasonable grounds to doubt it. When the text contradicts itself, some judgment calls are required as to how it should be handled.

100% agree the spell could have been written a lot better.

[redking]

Someone should come up with "flesh undead", undead created from the product of stone to flesh spells. I don't think it can be taken for granted that this fleshy substance can be turned into standard undead like zombies (no bones, for one).

[AceDragonKing]

Every time Stone to Flesh is mentioned (in relation to creating corpses), someone has to chime in with "Ackchyually...". :smallamused:

It says it creates a corpse, right there in the spell! Not corpse-shaped pile of meat. A corpse. Lacking an ingame definition of corpse, we default to common usage.

I get it, I really do. People want to ascribe a certain logic and science to how it should work, but yanno....MAGIC.

Sorry, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it has popped up several times in the last month or so, and it both amuses and irks me every time.

I think i’m inclined to agree with you. Magic is magic not science

[loky1109]

I get it, I really do. People want to ascribe a certain logic and science to how it should work, but yanno....MAGIC.

I think i’m inclined to agree with you. Magic is magic not science.

I can't hear this. Repeatable and knowable effects which can be industrial used. D&D Magic definitely is science.

[Eldonauran]

I can't hear this. Repeatable and knowable effects which can be industrial used. D&D Magic definitely is science.
It is for wizards, at least. Or other casters that tend to use ritual-like means to cast their spells. Others simply MAKE magic work through sheer force of will.

[RNightstalker]

100% agree the spell could have been written a lot better.

How many threads about spells can you post that same statement in?

[redking]

How about stone to flesh then raise dead?

[Thurbane]

How about stone to flesh then raise dead?

That's going to cause all kind of "divided by zero" errors, as the corpse was never alive.

[Maat Mons]

There are ways for Wizards to give people their limbs back. The most practical one is to craft a Dukar Hand Coral (Champions of Valor, p63).

All my organ harvesting schemes either involve buying a Bed of Regeneration (Stronghold Builder's Guide, p70), or casting the Clone spell.